For a fun and newsworthy example of how children can be harmed by selfish parents who divorce or don't bother getting married, read up on the story of the 9-year-old girl at the center of the "under God" pledge case that's coming up before the Supreme Court on Wednesday.
The case was brought by Michael Newdow (search), an atheist who does not want his 9-year-old daughter exposed to the phrase "under God," which Congress inserted in 1954 in a Cold War expression of abhorrence of godless communism. [editorialize much? -- MW]Good work. You know, it's pretty easy to avoid pregnancy these days.The girl's mother, Sandra Banning (search), is a born-again Christian locked in a bitter custody dispute with Newdow, whom she never married. Backed by former Whitewater prosecutor Kenneth Starr, she has told the justices that her daughter has no objection to reciting "under God" in school each day. ...
The acrimony between Banning and Newdow is intense. They could not even agree whether the fourth-grader in the Elk Grove school district near Sacramento could attend the Supreme Court arguments. ...
Banning, who regularly takes her daughter to the Calvary Chapel of Laguna Creek, said she became romantically involved with Newdow after she divorced another man — a brief period when she "lost sight" of her faith.
"At that time in my life, I wasn't participating with my faith or going to church. As a result, in our dating relationship, I did get pregnant," said Banning, who does clerical work at home.
Newdow himself sounds like the type of guy that needs to get his butt kicked on general principles.
Newdow said he studied to became a doctor at the University of California at Los Angeles, to help people, then got a law degree at the University of Michigan so he could sue doctors. He made a fortune in medicine. And now his legal battles consume most of his time.But anyway, the reason he apparently lost shared custody of his daughter is ridiculous.Newdow also challenged — unsuccessfully — the religious invocation at the inauguration of President Bush. He is also challenging a California law requiring him to pay Banning's legal fees in their custody battle — more than $300,000 in all.
As for his daughter, Newdow said he was partially stripped of custody rights because when the girl was 5, he let her enter a bathroom by herself at an airport.And if he'd taken her into the restroom himself he'd be sued for child abuse or something."I lost custody because I let my daughter go pee!" he exclaimed. "When she came out, I told her she needed to tell her mom, because she would be proud."
The girl's mother said the child was put in danger.
Poor girl. Both of her parents sound pretty idiotic, and now she's being used for publicity purposes in one of the highest-profile Supreme Court cases of our time. Do you think all these shenanigans may end up being more harmful to her than saying the Pledge of Allegiance?
True, but at least she didn't have a "choice."
True. As despicable as her parents appear, I suspect she'd prefer her current situation to death.
Your comment about avoiding pregnancy came across sarcastic to me, and I think unnecessary. The point was that she was backslidden and blinded by her sin and selfseeking. Thank God that His severity and kindness are manifest to us in that He uses our most heinous acts to bring us home and into repentance.
Please, it was a little below your usual thoughtfulness to resort to what sounded snide.
Sorry, but I agree with the judge on this one. Letting a 5 yr-old child out of your sight in a public building is irresponsible, and as too many parents have learned, can be catastrophic.
Airports have restrooms designated for use by parents accompanying their opposite sex children. All he had to do was pick up a white telephone and ask.
No one can know what happens inside a marriage or relationship...or who is the wronged person, if any. I am repelled by Newdow's lack of concern about the effects of the case on his daughter. His ideals trump all. That is just wrong, children's well-being and safety always comes first.
IMHO-He would have been smarter to guide his child into Atheism gently, explaining why he beieves it is the best choice and reinforcing his beliefs by example, not making her a cause celebre for the nutty left.
The child will make her own decision eventually no matter what the parents do or say...that's sort of the point. You raise them to be independent ethical adults...not clones of yourself or your ideology.
Thus many yellow dog Democrat families end up with card-carrying conservative children and visa-versa...not to mention the millions who convert to another faith or abandon it altogether for a secular lifestyle.
I think Newdow would be on this path whether he had a child or not, he is on a mission.
I look at those parents and think, "Some people weren't beaten adequately as children."
BW: Maybe you're right.
Feste: There's generally only one exit from a bathroom, so I doubt his daughter could have been kidnapped. But maybe she was too young to go alone....
LB: My thoughts as well.
Maybe if he had married the woman and done the right thing by his daughter, his wife could have gone into the bathroom with her. He is a classic example of a self centered athiest. He is ruining his daughter's life and using her to justify his own distorted beliefs.